It is deja vu all over again!
The goal posts have been moved back once again and the supposed deadline for an Israeli preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites is now sometime after the presidential elections and before the end of this year.
One of many logical questions that comes to mind is why did Israel not carry out this preemptive attack on Iran all those other times it threatened to do so. How many times did our investigative journalists and American and Israeli media and even some Administration officials warn us, often with predicted deadlines, about the imminence of this Israeli attack?
Could the answer be in the logic that people, countries and empires tend to do whatever is perceived to be to their advantage, and refrain from taking actions that might potentially lead to their demise? And, when was the last time a dominant regional or global power decided not to pursue its perceived best interests for the sake of fairness or humanitarian concerns? The only logical concern in such cases is ensuring that the expected benefits are not outweighed by the costs of achieving the desired objectives; it is really that simple, a no-brainer!
I have written volumes in the past about Israel's regional agendas, as influenced and driven by its internal socioeconomic dilemmas, principally with regard to the occupied territories and the Palestinian issues, and contingent on its vital linkage to America's economic, military and diplomatic might.
To ensure that its regional agendas, its perceived interests and future prospects continue to have the full backing of the world's most powerful empire, Israel has spared no effort in fortifying its influence on America's foreign policy apparatus, the Congress and the White House, and above all, the American public's mindset through the mass media. Could the Jewish state be faulted for that?
As the presidential elections approach, among the most crucial issues to be debated between President Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney, are the two domestic issues of the economy and health care, plus the one foreign policy issue regarding the Middle East. Enough has been said and written about the fact that, without the support of the pro-Zionist and pro-Israel centers of influence, no candidate, whether running for a congressional seat or the presidency of the United States, would have a chance to succeed. These centers of power can make or break any candidate's chances of success, as amply demonstrated in the past. Money and publicity, which means access to the mass media, are the two determining factors in any politically vital battleground. Our bipartisan adoration and unequivocal support of Israel and Zionist agendas leaves little doubt as to who or what forces influence America's foreign policies.
It is, therefore, no surprise that Mr. Romney has just announced that he is to make his pilgrimage to Israel and meet with the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, this summer. He, as well as other former hopefuls and current Romney supporters, have been relentless in accusing the current Administration of not being tough enough in dealing with Israel's chief antagonist in the region, Iran.
The Obama camp, meanwhile, has had no option but to continue to ratchet up the tension against the Islamic Republic through additional sanctions and pressures on its European allies to do the same. In this crucial elections year and in the face of the well-indoctrinated American public opinion, having done otherwise would be committing political suicide.
A good example of how the American mass media continue to "manage" the public mindset regarding the "designated enemy", Iran, is the recent reportage on Iran's military exercises that displayed various medium and long range missiles. The display of Iranian missiles capabilities and the statements of Iran's military commanders were portrayed as "threats" to American bases and the naval forces in the region, as well as to Israel. In other words, the gist of the media reporting was that the Iranians are now exhibiting their missile technology and threatening American forces and military bases in the Middle East, with the capability of hitting Israeli targets. What was missing in this media frenzy was the clear statements by the Iranians that those exercises were to demonstrate Iran's retaliatory capabilities in case of an American or Israeli attack on Iran. Is it logical to expect a nation under threats of military attack to refrain from attempting to defend itself?
In the meantime, observers and analysts of the Iranian dilemma continue to raise many valid points as to the very illegality of the economic sanctions against Iran, Iran's legal rights to nuclear enrichment, the humanitarian aspects of the sanctions, the potential of approaching a flashpoint, etc.
Mr. Buchanan's article, Why this Obsession With Iran?, does touch on a very important, yet often ignored point: Pakistan. More about that further down.
Mr. Buchanan, like most other analysts, is critical of the Administration on several grounds: He asks why no diplomatic effort was initiated to break the impasse with Iran, as was so effectively done in 1959, when President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States for 10 days of touring and talks, or in 1972, when Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing to toast and talk with Chairman Mao. He presents solid arguments against the allegations that Iran is in the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and regards America's paranoid militarization of the Persian Gulf unnecessary and dangerous.
Buchanan, as well as other well-intentioned writers and analysts, among the most qualified of them I would name Hillary and Flynt Leverett of the website, Race for Iran.com, seem to base their critiques on of the two following assumptions: Either the Administration officials, meaning the White House and the State Department, are ignorant of the facts on the ground and do not know what is best for America's strategic interests in the Middle East; or, they are knowingly and deliberately taking this country in a wrong and dangerous path with dire consequences. The second alternative sounds too conspiratorial, even seditious, to be considered seriously.
This leaves us with the assumption that our foreign policy apparatus in Washington is in the hands of incompetent fools who simply don't know better! But, is this a realistic assessment? I certainly do not believe so. Instead, it is much more logical to maintain that the White House, the State Department, as well as our various intelligence services are well aware of the facts, and there is very little if anything that we critics could teach them that they don't already know. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to assume that, knowing the facts, the Administration would be unwilling to find effective ways to serve America's best strategic interests in the Middle East.
With the above points in mind, we can only reach one conclusion: the American government is suffering from a systemic paralysis that prevents it from doing the right thing, namely pursuing America's best national interests.
What are the roots or sources of this systemic paralysis? To solve this riddle we must look at the centers of power and influence that benefit from preventing or hampering efforts to follow the proper course of action.
We could certainly point to the proverbial military/industrial complex that thrives on global unrest and concerns, real or concocted, over national security. We could also point to the naive evangelical zealots whose blind passion for religious redemption recognizes no limit.
But by far the greatest culprit is the pro-Zionism monster that feeds on public sympathy generated by decades of successful public relations campaigns and the control of the American media, hence stranglehold over the United States Congress and the White House.
We cannot reasonable blame the Jewish state for attempting to benefit from its parasitic symbiosis with the United States. After years of this parasite and host relationship, extricating the parasite is not easy and could even prove fatal to the host.
The portrayal of Israel in the American mindset as a beacon of Western values and democracy and as a vital asset for serving America's interests in the Middle East has always been enhanced when Israel is viewed as a friend and ally under the threat of annihilation by hostile, uncivilized entities in the region. For this portrayal to serve its purpose, some believable evil power must be found or "designated" to play the role of the villain. Fortunately for Israel, Iran has been playing that role quite convincingly to this point.
Even though it defies logic to think that Iran would somehow benefit from attacking Israel with or without a nuclear arsenal, something that the American government and the Israelis, as well as the Iranians, are well aware of, most Americans have been buying into this fallacy.
This macabre charade has had to continue to serve its intended purpose at the expense of Iranian people's suffering and America's true national interests, until such time that another suitable pariah could be found to take up the role of the "existential" threat to Israel.
As I have mentioned several times in the past, and as Pat Buchanan has pointed to in his article sited above, Pakistan is the logical replacement for Iran as not just another designated enemy to Israel and indeed to Western interests, but as a much more realistic danger to regional peace and security.
As I have maintained repeatedly, neither the United States, nor Israel, and certainly not Iran would like to escalate the current tensions to a level that military hostilities might break out. Even though the current tensions seem to be approaching a flashpoint, there are plenty of signals that all parties are trying to avoid that confrontation.
It is for the above reasons that I predict that an easing of the sanctions and hostile Western rhetoric against Iran is in the books once we hurdle the American presidential elections, perhaps by mid 2013. Israel will have its elections this year, and the final term of the Iranian president, the man whom the Israelis have maliciously depicted as a second Hitler, even though he had no power over Iran's military or foreign policy, will also be over by next July.
As I have said before, if another actual military confrontation could have
proved beneficial for the United States or Israel, no concern over humanitarian
values or the violation of international law would have prevented an attack on
Iran. History has proven that fact.
Other recent articles by Kam Zarrabi:
order from amazon
Iran Back In Context
Author: Kambiz Zarrabi
Kamran Zarrabi has recently completed writing his memoirs of his 2011 trip to Iran. The manuscript called "Iran, Back in Context" also contains the accounts of several interviews with a broad cross section of people, photographs, and details of travels to remote areas of the country.
... Payvand News - 07/09/12 ... --